- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
It ain't so much the caliber, but the placement of the shot along with the bullet being constructed for the job as well as having said bullet pushed to an adequate velocity to do the job. No biggy.
7.62x39 for bear
- Thread starter LiGuang
- Start date
It ain't so much the caliber, but the placement of the shot along with the bullet being constructed for the job as well as having said bullet pushed to an adequate velocity to do the job. No biggy.
- Location
- Steel Town
I would have absolutely no qualms about taking any black bear with a commercial 7.62x39 soft point (e.g. Prvi or S&B 123gr) out of a CZ 527 within 125 yards.
I am also very comfortable in my skills using my SKS out to 100 yards, and if that's all I had, I would use it.
Having said all that, I have 7x57, 6.5x55, and 30-06 that would likely get the nod.
I am also very comfortable in my skills using my SKS out to 100 yards, and if that's all I had, I would use it.
Having said all that, I have 7x57, 6.5x55, and 30-06 that would likely get the nod.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Reread my post. Anyone who has followed what I've written concerning bear defense, and bear hunting, over the past 10 years knows that the bears I'm most concerned with are polar bears, although all three species are encountered here. The point I was trying to get across, poorly apparently, was that my minimum cartridge recommendation stood for backies, despite my experience with the big bears. As result of my experience, my minimum recommendation for a bear gun, for any species of bear, is for a rifle chambered for a .30/06 class cartridge, I could of said a .375 because that's my real preference for bear work, but neither a .375 nor a .458 is a prudent choice for the novice bear hunter, any more than the 7.62X39 is. This is not a statement suggesting that nothing less than an '06 will work, and should not be taken that way, but it is a statement that cartridges in this class optimizes a prudent balance of terminal performance, recoil, controllability, and gun weight. I would hunt blackies with a 7.62X39 bolt gun, because I know what I can do, but I won't recommend it to a novice hunter, and anyone who asks about the suitability of this cartridge or that, for for this critter or that, is a novice. Its poor policy to extend advice from the point of view of what an expert can do, or the rifle he can do it with. The expert doesn't care what you think, but that same advice might not work out so well for the novice.
Last edited:
Back in 1992, there was an arctic survival course being run. During the 3 weeks of the course, I watched an old man stalk and kill a polar bear that weighed nearly 1700 lbs. He used a .30-30. He was backed up by his grandson who had the "high-powered" rifle (Lee Enfield, no. 1). The old guy fired two rounds. One lung, one head. Always, apparently. Lung shot to kill him, head shot to drop him so they didn't have to work so hard. We weren't allowed to shoot bears, had to fish for food. Cool way of setting up a net under the ice. How the heck people come up with this stuff beats me...
Well stated as usual, Boomer. It's like the old adage: If you have to ask...you can't afford it!
Interesting to read that you have Browns/Grizzlies up your way...I had no idea they were present in Manitoba. Would those be considered Barren-ground Grizzlies? I assume that it would be a rarity to encounter one in your vicinity? Considering that they would probably be at the small end of the Brown Bear size spectrum...do you think they could be cleanly taken with a .22Mag?
Interesting to read that you have Browns/Grizzlies up your way...I had no idea they were present in Manitoba. Would those be considered Barren-ground Grizzlies? I assume that it would be a rarity to encounter one in your vicinity? Considering that they would probably be at the small end of the Brown Bear size spectrum...do you think they could be cleanly taken with a .22Mag?
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
The inuit are known for using small calibers on animals, but it's due to several reason, none of which is the fact they want to use the best caliber for the task.
Ammo is expensive up north. Generally, the bigger the caliber, the more expensive ammo is. The terrain is devoid of trees so following up a polar bear that's been shot with a 223 on snowmobile is quite easy. He's got nowhere to hide.
One question; Why wouldn't he just shoot him in the head to begin with? Kill him and drop him at the same time? Sounds like one of "those" stories.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Well stated as usual, Boomer. It's like the old adage: If you have to ask...you can't afford it!
Interesting to read that you have Browns/Grizzlies up your way...I had no idea they were present in Manitoba. Would those be considered Barren-ground Grizzlies? I assume that it would be a rarity to encounter one in your vicinity? Considering that they would probably be at the small end of the Brown Bear size spectrum...do you think they could be cleanly taken with a .22Mag?
Barren ground grizzlies are here, in 25+ years I haven't seen one, but a pal of mine got a day time trail cam photo of one outside his cabin. Its pretty cool, as he has photos of both cinnamon and black color phases of black bears, polar bears, and now a grizzly all in the same area near his cabin. I thought I had a copy of the grizzly photo, but I've spent an hour looking for it and can't seem to find it. If I come across it I'll post it.
Here we go . . .
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
If the bear is hunted on the sea ice, you'd be surprised how many places there are to avoid a pursuer in rough pressure ice or near leads. The lung shot ensures the bear will die, if the head shot doesn't work, but a head shot on a bear is a complicated marksmanship problem. Its not unlike the problem of a brain shot on an elephant, the head is massive, the brain is relatively small, and not necessarily located where you think it should be. I seem to recall a suggestion posted by someone that the problem is easily solved by shooting the critter in the eye. The problem is the brain does not lie directly behind the eye since its only the width of the snout, and if you're close enough to hit the eye when you try it, well . . .
Last edited:
Wow! Thanks for that clarification and those pics, Boomer. I've toyed with the notion of setting up a trailcam in the backyard, less for the occasional Black Bear that we get and more for purposes of recording 2-legged visitors. It's a whole different story when you start talking about Polar and Grizzly Bears wandering through the yard!
Up near the top of the ramp in the photos...are those pieces of plywood filled with upward-projecting nails to keep the big furries from entering and causing damage? And here I am #####ing about the occasional raccoon messing up my bird feeders!!!
Up near the top of the ramp in the photos...are those pieces of plywood filled with upward-projecting nails to keep the big furries from entering and causing damage? And here I am #####ing about the occasional raccoon messing up my bird feeders!!!
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Wow! Thanks for that clarification and those pics, Boomer. I've toyed with the notion of setting up a trailcam in the backyard, less for the occasional Black Bear that we get and more for purposes of recording 2-legged visitors. It's a whole different story when you start talking about Polar and Grizzly Bears wandering through the yard!
Up near the top of the ramp in the photos...are those pieces of plywood filled with upward-projecting nails to keep the big furries from entering and causing damage? And here I am #####ing about the occasional raccoon messing up my bird feeders!!!
Yup, "bear boards" are a common deterrent to keep cabin raiders at bay. In the spring, they can be less effective, as they tend to get covered with wind hardened snow, but Mike's ramp is usually blown clear. Some folks hang bear boards vertically on doors and windows if they tend to have snow drifted around their cabins. Its almost funny though when a cabin is hit by a polar bear who ignores the bear boards and just goes in through one wall and out through another. . . unless you happen to own the cabin, then its not so funny.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
A bear skull and an elephant skull are nothing alike, neither is their brain shape or location. In relation to skull size, a bear's brain occupies a much larger area. I've cleaned about 20 bear skulls on average per year for the past 25 years, so I'm quite familiar with them.
Many inuit hunters really don't concern themselves much with wounding, especially walrus hunters. Their concern with using the calibers they do has little to do with "efficiency".
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The similarity I referred to between the bear and the elephant skull has to do neither with the shape nor the size of the skulls, but in the difficulty of locating the brain within a massive head for a fast shot. I think you know this and are just trying to be difficult. Had your bear skull photo been face on, it would have illustrated the narrowness of the brain pan vs, the overall width of the skull. Add to this the fact that the bear's head could be in motion, unless he's locked onto you, a mixed blessing, adds to the degree of difficulty faced by the rifleman.
Here's a few face on photos of live bears which should help illustrate the problem . . .
In each case the eye sockets are outside the width of the brain pan, and depending on the shot angle, sometimes there isn't much to shoot at. It appears that the brain should extend to the base of the ears, but it doesn't.
If you spend a few hours on an airplane and get to face down one of these things, the trick they say is to imagine sliding a broom stick through the ears then attempt to break the center of the stick with your shot. By the time you're done trying to figure that one out, you're a smudge on the ground. The problem with the elephant is the same as the problem with the bear; finding an index to the brain inside a confusingly large head.
Last edited:
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Regardless, we're not dealing with bear defense scenarios or elephants or polar bears in this thread though........ 7.62x39 on black bear. I realize some people like twisting every topic on bears into self defense nonsense, but I do believe the OP was just planning on hunting black bear with his SKS.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
According to you, it was you that brought it up....
But that is neither here nor there... even on black bears, I would cringe if a client pulled an SKS out of his guncase for a bear hunt.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I think you've taken my reference to self defense out of context. The point I was making was that my recommendation of a .30/06 class of cartridge was prudent for a novice hunter, and that it was not based on my experience with larger species. I made no other mention of bear defense until bearkilr brought it up. All of my references towards head shots related to the degree of difficulty they involved and why, after bearkilr asked the question, why not just shoot them in the head? pertaining to the Inuit hunter making both a chest and head shot. None of my posts described the circumstances under which such a shot would be made, be it sport hunting, subsistence hunting, or self defence.
At least we agree on the SKS.
I guess I should have said that the lung shot was to kill in case the second, head shot, was a miss. I wouldn't go after a Polar bear with an SKS, but a black bear? I'd shoot it if I had it. Not my choice, though.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
The similarity I referred to between the bear and the elephant skull has to do neither with the shape nor the size of the skulls, but in the difficulty of locating the brain within a massive head for a fast shot. I think you know this and are just trying to be difficult. Had your bear skull photo been face on, it would have illustrated the narrowness of the brain pan vs, the overall width of the skull. Add to this the fact that the bear's head could be in motion, unless he's locked onto you, a mixed blessing, adds to the degree of difficulty faced by the rifleman.
Here's a few face on photos of live bears which should help illustrate the problem . . .
In each case the eye sockets are outside the width of the brain pan, and depending on the shot angle, sometimes there isn't much to shoot at. It appears that the brain should extend to the base of the ears, but it doesn't.
If you spend a few hours on an airplane and get to face down one of these things, the trick they say is to imagine sliding a broom stick through the ears then attempt to break the center of the stick with your shot. By the time you're done trying to figure that one out, you're a smudge on the ground. The problem with the elephant is the same as the problem with the bear; finding an index to the brain inside a confusingly large head.
Nice pictures, but I'll just let you guys run with this thread as I haven't proclaimed myself to be an expert and am probably not worthy of giving advice.
